Electability

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by stevento, Mar 11, 2008.

  1. stevento macrumors 6502

    stevento

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2006
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #1
    Let's put our opinions about Hillary and Obama aside and talk about who's more electable.

    obviously, i'll vote for either, but I think Hillary is more electable. Not just because I like her.

    1. She wins in big states and swing states. OH CA MA etc.

    2. She's from Arkansas which would turn blue (since Huckabee is out). and looking at recent elections, its very possible that it could come down to one state. Let's have arkansas bee our florida this time! :D

    3. Republican attacks have been largely ineffective on her over the past 16 years. Obama's criticism has worked among democrats, but the general is a different type of race. the republican attack machine isn't nice. if obama can't stand up to hillary's softball attacks like the 3 am phone call i dont know how he's going to stand up when they start swiftboating. what if they make up something and undecided voters buy into it?

    4. what if his momentum/celebrity/phenomenon status wears off later in the year and mccain starts touting his military service? hillary isn't the new kid on the block.

    5. how will he make the case on foriegn policy to the whole nation? its easy with democrats. he just says "i opposed the war." and he's done. but that might not fly with undecided voters in the general. john mccain and hillary have lifetimes of expirience on that.


    ok to be fair here are some points where obama is more electable:
    1. nobody hates him like hillary.
    2. he brings in independants
    3. he's got republicans voting for him.
    4. he's not a she.
    5. he's a phenomenon
    6. he's tall and skinny, good looking, great charisma
     
  2. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #2
    http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/03/06/electoral-math-as-of-030608-clinton-276-mccain-262/

    http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/03/06/electoral-math-as-of-030608-obama-280-mccain-258/

    According to SurveyUSA, Obama wins 280-258, Clinton wins 276-262.

    Clinton does provide Arkansas and has a much better chance in Florida, and apparently does better in PA, NJ, and West Virginia.

    Obama gives the Democrats a better chance in the West, Michigan, Virginia, and New Hampshire. Perhaps more importantly, it looks like he gives the Democrats a shot of winning without absolutely needing 2/3 in Ohio, PA, and FL.
     
  3. fridgeymonster3 macrumors 6502

    fridgeymonster3

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    #3
    I think the idea that Hillary is more electable based on the idea that she won the big states is poorly constructed. The big states she has won, by my count, are CA, NY, NJ, OH, TX, and MA. First, TX is going to go to McCain no matter what, so if you are a Democrat, who cares who won TX. Second, in the last four presidential elections, CA, NY, NJ, and MA have voted Democratic. It would most likely have been 5 times in a row if it weren't for pathetic Michael Dukakis in 1988 (which neither Obama or Clinton are). Therefore, of the big states so far, four will almost definitely go to either Democrat and Texas will go to McCain.

    Now onto OH. Ohio has supported Bush 43 in 2000 and 2004, and supported Clinton in 1992 and 1996, so the state of Ohio has voted twice Republican and twice Democratic in the past four presidential elections. Because Ohio has always been viewed as a key swing state, than perhaps, since Hillary won OH, than she might seem the better candidate.

    But that is based solely on 1 "big state". Now, since she won those "big states" in the primaries, than perhaps, Obama will get less of the popular vote in those states during the general election; however, the Electoral votes are the only votes that truly matter, so if Obama wins CA, NY, NJ, and MA by 5% and Clinton would have won by 10% - it doesn't make a difference at all. Hell, Obama could win by a percent and Hillary by 30% and Obama still gets the electoral votes.

    Lastly, I feel that OH will not be a swing state this year because of the mood of our country, which was shown by the special election in Illinois for Dennis Hastert's open House seat. The area in Illinois has a strong Republican lean, shown by the area voting for Hastert for more than two decades and the district voted for Bush both in 2000 and 2004 by about 10% each time. However, Democrat Bill Foster won by 5%, not a great margain but a huge turn around from Bush winning by 10% (basically a 7.5% gain for the Democrats and an overall swing of 15%). I think this is very bad news for Republicans and I believe it shows that OH will most likely go to either Democrat, so that means Hillary or Obama would win all of the "big states" she has already won. This means no advantage on that level.
     
  4. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #4
    Obama is obviously going to win states like CA and MA in the general election.

    Obama could turn multiple states blue. In SC he received more votes in the dem primary than McCain and Huckabee recieved combined in the Republican. Dems outnumbered the Republicans 2:1 in one of the reddest states of the country. If that trend continues he could have a huge victory.

    Obama has far less skeletons in his closet than Hillary.

    That won't happen. Obama is going to smoke McCain in debates and stuff.

    Name me one specific instance of Hillary (NOT BILL'S) foreign policy experience. When asked this question the other day her advisors couldn't even answer the question. There was 5 seconds of dead silence before they went in to that "she has a lifetime of experience" crap. Now you're doing the same thing.

    Obama is young and charismatic and has the capability to inspire and bring out many more first time voters.

    MSNBC talked about a poll a few weeks ago about which candidates people really didn't like and wouldn't be satisfied with: Hillary 45%, McCain 37%, Obama 31%.

    Obama wins by bigger margins in most of the polls. He averages like +7 while Hillary is like +1 (practically a statistical tie).

    Oh, and all the reasons you listed.

    If Hillary steals the nomination, John McCain will be the President.
     
  5. fridgeymonster3 macrumors 6502

    fridgeymonster3

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    #5
    I have to agree, but how important are presidential debates anyways? Date from the 2000 elections shows that only 14.3% of the the US population watched the three debates (average of 17%, 13%, 13% for the three debates respectively). First, what percentage of those had already made up their mind or were staunch supporters of one of the candidates. Second, what percentage of the 14.3% watched more than one of the debates. I don't know the answer to those (I just happen to remember the data) but if a large percentage of people watched all three and were already supporters of one candidate than they aren't that important overall.

    EDIT: Just did some research and found that the percentage of viewers for the 2004 debate went up to an overall average of 17.3%. So, if an upward trend continues than perhaps 20% or so of the country will watch each debate making the debates more meaningful than 2000.
     
  6. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #6
    Not that I really disagree with your point, but people don't need to watch the debates to be influenced by them. They can read about them, be told about them, be influenced by people who watched them, etc.
     
  7. PlaceofDis macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    #7
    not going to say much but this: Hillary isn't 'from' Arkansas. she was born and raised in the suburbs of Chicago. thats all. helps to know a bit more about the person you're supporting.
     
  8. fridgeymonster3 macrumors 6502

    fridgeymonster3

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    #8
    That's true, but she was very visible in Arkansas. I think she lived there for about 17-18 years with Bill (not including years in the White House) and spent about 12 years as the Governor's wife (I think 12, I do know that he wasn't re-elected in the early 80's after his first term, but was than re-elected in like 82-83 and stayed for 9+ years until his presidency). So, twelve years as the first lady of Arkansas gives her credibility with the Arkansas people.
     
  9. PlaceofDis macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    #9
    not going to argue that, but shes certainly not 'from' there as was implied. and i don't see why being the wife of the governor should give her any credibility as a politician there personally, its not as if she was writing policy.
     
  10. SMM macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #10
    I have pondered this question ever since Obama showed himself to be a viable candidate. Personally, I though the best candidate in the field was Chris Dodd, and after him John Edwards. But, it was not to be.

    I believe either candidate is capable doing a good job of uniting the party and wining the WH.
     
  11. stevento thread starter macrumors 6502

    stevento

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2006
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #11
    well obama is not really "from" illinois then. he's from hawaii
    anyways i think the thing is that arkansas could be that one state to turn blue and give us the victory


    idk about that. the republicans have been swiftboating her for years and she's not dead yet.
    obama smoked pot and did some other stuff that i'm not mad at him for but remember swiftboating is about making stuff up.
    they could say "obama...gang...whatever whatever...rape...murder...whatever" and i hate to say this but they migth buy it because he's black. hillary has been fighting off this crap for 20 years now.

    hillary is picking up more swing states like ohio and florida

    how about travelling all over the world as first lady and fighting for people's rights there?
    how about serving on the senate armed services committee?

    thats as of today. the election is in november
     
  12. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #12
    Early polls and other indicators state that Obama possibly can give us some or all of the following: Iowa, Colorado, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Maine, North and South Dakota, Oregon and Washington where Clinton cannot. And from what I've seen in Missouri, I really think Obama would win it whereas Clinton would not. Give McCain Arkansas, if we win just a couple of those, it won't matter.
     
  13. SPG macrumors 65816

    SPG

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2001
    Location:
    In the shadow of the Space Needle.
  14. Don't panic macrumors 603

    Don't panic

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2004
    Location:
    having a drink at Milliways
    #14
    it's not who SAW the debates that matter, it is who the media SAY had won the debates and how.
     
  15. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #15
    Yeah, yeah, yeah. And GWB isn't really a Texas cowboy, but everyone treats him as such. He's actually a Northeastern elite, but that doesn't "play" as well in Omaha.
     
  16. PlaceofDis macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    #16
    i've known all along that he wasn't from texas, and i never understood why people treated him as such. its just another way of trying to project yourself as something you're not.

    and i know that Obama is originally from HI, did i ever say that he wasn't?
     
  17. Lyle macrumors 68000

    Lyle

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Location:
    Madison, Alabama
    #17
    And you know this how? He's told you?

    I have no idea how many skeletons Senator Obama has or doesn't have in his closet, but by definition, if we already knew about them they would no longer be "closeted," would they?

    If anything, I'm guessing that Senator Clinton has fewer skeletons in her closet, given all that we know about her. Unless it's a really big closet.
     
  18. roland.g macrumors 603

    roland.g

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Location:
    One mile up and soaring
    #18
    That's why I hate the 2 party system. To think in b&w terms if Rep and Dem is pretty close minded. I vote for the best candidate and not the one from the party I ascribe to...etc. Honestly what is sad is that after 8 yrs of Dubya, that we don't have a single decent candidate. They are all weak, from McCain to Obama, to Huckabee and Clinton.

    McCain: old and uninspiring, no charisma.
    Obama: too young, inexperienced, wild card.
    Huckabee: do we need another Jimmy Carter. this guy couldn't find his... let alone...
    Clinton: just plain scary, sorry but power hungry nut with the elitist-but-knows-whats-best-for-everyone self-righteous attitude is frightening.

    Sorry that after 8 yrs of even Rep's looking for something new, all we have is Hilary and Obama. Way to go Dems. You just gave away a golden opportunity to take the White House. It was yours and you gave it to some over the hill bland Rep like McCain.

    Maybe we'll get a real president in 2012.
     
  19. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #19
    All I'm saying is that it tends to matter very little to people where a politician is actually from. People tend to pay attention to where a politician is from now.

    IOW, it doesn't really matter that HRC isn't actually from Arkansas. I'm not sure what her being from Chicago actually tells you.
     
  20. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #20
    Where does the inexperienced myth keep coming from?

    Obama has more time in elected office than Clinton. Sure she was the wife of a governor and president but she didn't have any security clearance in the Bill Clinton administration so was not actively involved with advising on anything that required a clearance. Sure she got to meet some world leaders, but how many of them are still the leaders of their countries? She served on a Senate committee? How much traveling and dealing with foreign governments did she do on that committee? The only reason that she appears to have experience is because she's been a figure on the national stage for 16+ years.

    The inexperience myth will come back to bite her if that's her only asset against Obama, since McCain can wipe the floor with either of them when it comes to experience.

    Obama seems to be finally tapping the "youth vote" that gets touted every election but is too busy on election day to go vote. They've already started showing up for the primaries which is a good sign for the general election. He has broader appeal to conservatives (who aren't all that happy with McCain) and independents who seem to dislike Clinton for reasons that may or may not be valid.

    As far as the choices this year, I'm more pleased than I have been with previous elections, however I know as a country we could do much better. Unfortunately those who would probably make the best elected officials are also those people who seem to have no desire to enter politics in the first place.
     
  21. PlaceofDis macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    #21
    i know that it matters little to people, but i don't understand why it should matter that she living in arkansas though, its not as if she was a politician there. if she was involved in politics there, fine, then it should matter to the people there due to her past experience with the population. she's basically riding on her husband's governing.
     
  22. elcid macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    #22
    Obama is the most electable. Hands down. He can bring in independents for sure. And with a moderate to liberal Republican on the ticket, the war is going to be fought for the independents.

    Hilary has demonized the Republicans so much that no one is going to want to come close to working with her. Obama has put on a facad that while he surely doesn't agree with them he can work with them.

    The inexperience thing is bogus. No one is ever ready to assume the powers of presidency. I would say Ike came closest because of this background. So inexperience is crap, and saying I am best to pick up the phone is BS.

    As for swiftboating, it is all in how the campaign handles that stuff. Kerry kept on talking about. Kept on denying it. Deny it, deny it, deny it, deny it, until thats all anyone ever heard. Issues, screw issues, what did Kerry say about swiftboats.

    Obama has already faced this with his middle name and his madrassa training or whatever. And he confronts it once and moves on. And now we are no longer talking about it.

    Obama has the best chance at beating a liberal Republican. And stevento, you are the last person I think that could offer an opinion free topic :)
     
  23. Gelfin macrumors 68020

    Gelfin

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #23
    All the Clinton-boosters love to talk about how she's "survived" swiftboating, but I don't really see this as an advantage. The problem is she's pre-swiftboated. She's going into the race with a great black mark in the liability column that she was saddled with eight years ago. The right-wing noise machine is just praying for Clinton to become the candidate because they can just dust off the sleaze they've kept in their hope chests against just such an opportunity.

    As far as surviving, she hasn't really. She's more hid out from the torch-wielding mob in one of the bluer states in the nation while hinting at her intent to run for President. The right are prepared for this. They have been since 2000. Of course the right want her to become the candidate, because they've been dreaming for years about how to defeat her.

    My family live in the rural South. I go back there for holidays, and from my perspective Clinton's supporters just do not really comprehend what they're up against. "Hillary Clinton" has become a code word for evil in those parts. You don't even have to explain why you dislike her. You'd certainly have to explain yourself if you said you did, because it's like confessing to sacrificing babies to Satan. Most of them don't even know why they hate her, but it's because a decade ago the right-wing slander machine worked, and even though they generally cannot remember what she was said to have actually done (except maybe that she stuck her clawed hand down Vince Foster's throat, pulled out his still-beating heart and ate it in front of him), they certainly remember they f***ing hate Hillary Clinton and only a horrible, horrible person wouldn't.

    It's irrational, but it's real, and I frankly don't know how a candidate overcomes that.
     
  24. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #24
    It is crap indeed. She only has a couple more years in the senate than he does, and if you're going to count actual years of elected office, he has more because he was a state senator since 1997. So he's got 11 years elected office experience compared to her 7. Being married to a president DOES NOT COUNT AS EXPERIENCE! Just because you're married to someone doesn't mean a thing. Would you want your doctor's spouse operating on you? Hell no, why would you want your president's wife running the country? I'm so sick and tired of hearing this experience BS from her. If we're voting for someone based on experience, shouldn't we all be voting for McCain since he's been in an elected office since the start of the Roman Empire?
     
  25. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #25
    My problem with Obama is to me is is all talk. I have not really heard him say anything that was not all talk.

    Add to that my trust for him went out the window when he backing down from a public statement that he would use public money for his campaign if the Republican would. McCain already said he would do it.

    All of a sudden Obama camp is trying to cover there rear because they unexpected happened. Instead of getting a new weapon they now are going to get hammered by it and on top of that nailed for lieing. The clip of Obama saying that will be played over and over again.

    To me that makes me not trust Obama backing down on a blanted statement like that. If he going to change his tune on something minor like that then what does it say for everything else.
     

Share This Page